Mar-12-05 Fischer vs Benko, 1959 
| |
| ccolby4: Each of these Fisher games has the same general look on first glance. It seems there is a lot of open space on the board. Most of the pieces still seem to be around. Maybe there are long reaches of action for bishop and rook. I admit this is subjective. It's almost the kind of ... |
|
|
|
Dec-01-04 H Clemenz vs F Eisenschmidt, 1862
| |
| ccolby4: I like 21. Ba3. All it does is connect the rooks, preventing Black from checkmating first when White plays Qe6. It costs a bishop which White doesn't need, but doesn't accomplish any of the usual jobs of a sacrifice, like clearing a lane or removing a guard or, as here, both opening |
|
|
|
Oct-15-04 L Vizantiadis vs Pachman, 1967
| |
| ccolby4: Without the check at 26. ... Ne3+ I don't see where Black would have gone. So suppose White had played 24. Kg1. What then? |
|
|
|
Sep-02-04 C F Tears vs G Flum, 1965
| |
| ccolby4: White lost his queen for a rook and a bishop back on move 24. I don't see what's suddenly so dreadful that he has to abandon the struggle. 35. Ke1 prevents Qd1#. OK, Black will eventually pick off all white's pawns and push his own, but wasn't that in clear view back at move 24? |
|
|
|
| indicates a reply to the comment. |
|
Kibitzing
